Many of the
victims were young Hmong girls between the ages of
12 and 14.

Some were prisoners for months on
end. They were regularly shipped back to
affiliate Hmong gangs in the Mid-west states of
Wisconsin and Michigan. Presented as gifts, they were
prostituted out for a quick buck.

The young men found guilty of these
crimes are serving life sentences in various
California prisons.

This is unique savagery.
Ethnic gangs may kill one another but as a rule they
don't sexually assault, batter and barter their own
little girls.

That's the background for today's
rant.

On November 21, 2004 eight people
from Rice Lake Wisconsin were shot. So far six of them,
including a 27 year old girl, have died.

This is the story courtesy of P.J.
Huffstutter at the Los Angeles Times,

"What
actually happened out in the woods is still under
investigation; Chai Soua Vang, a Hmong immigrant from
Laos, told investigators that he opened fire Sunday
after the hunters taunted him with racial slurs and shot
at him. He said he continued to fire even as they ran
away and begged for help." [Little
Holiday Cheer as a Region Prepares to Bury Slain Hunters
November 25, 2004]

P.S. Vang also reportedly said to
one of his victims "You still alive?"
[VDARE.COM note: Or words to that effect,
see here—"graphic
information and content some people may consider
offensive."]Then he shot him again.

To prove my objectivity, this is an
accounting of events by a newspaper
notorious to Californians for placing criminals in
the best possible light.

Moreover, if the accused happens to
be a
minority immigrant, the LA Times'
journalistic function is customarily extended to spare
attorneys the arduous task of preparing a defense
strategy by inventing it for them.

In fact, that seems to be pretty
much the way the Establishment press sees its role. On
November 28, 2004 CNN reported a press conference held
by the three attorneys of Chai Vang and his daughter,
Kai Vang:

"Attorney Steven Kohn told reporters in Milwaukee that
Vang's defense lawyers are looking at 'potential mental
health and mental responsibility defenses' in addition
to a defense on the facts of the case... 'This certainly
does not seem to be a whodunit. It seems to be a
whydunit,' said Kohn."

Subhead:"Residents
describe a community that is fairly tolerant, if only
because of a lack of diversity."

We don't even need to read the
article, just the subhead.

Before Ms. Bjorhus even mentions
the specifics of the crime, she is already setting the
stage of a racist town. The town is apparently
tolerant—but only because it is predominantly white and
therefore not been tested.

I picture Ms. Bjorhus talking with
her editor.

Editor:
How is the story coming? Rice Lake is a racist
town, right?

Bjorhus:
Well, I haven't found any actual evidence
of racism. But I think in the right circumstances
they could be.For example, if there were more
minority residents in Rice Lake during a lunar eclipse
while Venus is in the fifth house after the Raiders win
the Super Bowl [BB: basically, unlikely
circumstances is what I am getting at]…there is a
distinct possibility those Cheese Heads could spout a
racial epithet or two.

While researching this story, I
noticed a remarkable unanimity within the Establishment
media. There were only two story lines…just repeated a
thousand times.

Six people murdered in Wisconsin.

Hmong community afraid of being
pigeon-holed as savages.

The former does not present an
accusation justifying the defensive response of the
latter.

Personally, I don't
care if he sleeps with the forty-odd
roosters he
reportedly raises in his garage (for
cock fighting?) and then cooks them over the
campfire in his living room—so long as it doesn't
harm other people.

In
Hmong Wrong For America. America Wrong For Hmong,
Joe Guzzardi wrote of his horror when one his Hmong
students announced he had to kill his wife because Joe's
hand had accidentally touched hers— and his mixed
feelings of sympathy and despair about the Hmong.

It would be unscrupulous to deviate
from that promise. We cannot breach our contract with
the Hmong simply because we know something now that we
wish we knew then.

However, it may not be the deal we
made so much as how we delivered our end of the
bargain. We promised to take care of them, wherever
they were. It was the path of least resistance (and
Refugee Industry lobbying) that brought them here.

The
Hmong Citizenship act of 2000 exempted the Hmong
from having to speak English as a precursor for American
citizenship. It even allowed the test to be administered
in Hmong.

This is the problem.

Our laissez-faire and brazen social
mores are overwhelming enough for the Hmong. But home
for the Hmong now is a country with which they cannot
even communicate because we told them they didn't
have to.

Whydunit? Whodunit? Who cares?

Who is Chai Vang? Is he:

A merciless savage?

Mentally deranged or
incapacitated?

A victim of history and our
disastrous immigration policies?

The answer: All of the above.

This Hmong show has no winners.
It's time to bring it to an end.

Bryanna Bevens [email
her] is a political consultant and former chief of staff
for a member of the California State Assembly.